4 Gig or ram- Only showing 3 gig

[vyaw...@gmail.com]

Hello,
Just read the longest post on this issue with no result so let try
again.
If i have 4 gig, only 3 shows, 750mb is reservered for the system.
Doesn't that seem a little stupid? If i have 3 gig of ram, 3 gig
shows in vista, here it has not needed to reserve 750mb. So why does
the first scenario need 750 for the system, and the second does not?
This would mean that the second does not have any ram for its system,
same devices and os. I would have thought that both situations would
result in having 750 stripped for the system. My old box, XP 256 mb
ram all that was avaliable and did not need dedicated system ram.
Does anyone have a straight answer for this? Yes i could run 64 bit
os, but at the moment i want to get 4 gig running in my 32 bit
environment.

I tried the following switches with no change.
> 1. Reboot Vista to safe mode with command line
> 2. Run the command : bcdedit /set PAE ForceEnable
> 3. Run bcdedit again to verify the switch is added
> 4. Reboot the system and check whether the problem is fixed

This is from the original post:

http://groups.google.com.au/group/microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices/browse_thread/thread/457d1c2ac0cd86aa/37dbc2867738d289?lnk=st&q=4gig+vista+ram+enterprise&rnum=1&hl=en#37dbc2867738d289

"LOL, I was scratching my head over that one too. By definition, a 32-
bit CPU
can directly address up to 4GB of memory. But apparently nearly 1GB of
that
is reserved for devices. So the most you can possibly see is 3.12GB in
a
32-bit system. The way I read it, there is no way around it, no "fix"
if
you're using a 32-bit version of Vista.

To see any more than 3.12 GB you have to be using a 64-bit version of
Vista
plus meet all those other requirements (64-bit CPU instruction set,
chipset
with 8GB address space, BIOS that supports memory remapping). That's
the way
I read it anyway.

I think the DEP/ PAE thing is a whole different (but related) issue. "

[Spirit]

Depending on what devices are mapping themselves in
you will get access to about 3.12 Gig or less.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/294418/en-us

<vyaw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186355538.7...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

[vyaw...@gmail.com]

also, my first reply on this:
someone posted that if you use PAE you could get the full 4 gig
showing, but it wont make any difference as the system will still need
to use 750mb for itself.
then why would a xp machine with 128 mb not fall over it would show
128mb, but need a fair wack for the system??
Sounds like to different outcomes?? which brings me to the original
point. The system cant hide the ram and use it for itself. XP and
Vista are the system and they use the ram that it can see and no more
"extra hidden ram".
how could a system address ram that it has not detected??

[babaloo]

Try an experiment.
Turn off all virtual memory, page files, set it all to zero.
Reboot and see if you notice any performance difference in your 4 gb
machine.

[Rick Rogers]

Wouldn't make any difference, the memory *addresses* are reserved by the
system.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"babaloo" <fac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qftti.47436$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

[Rick Rogers]

Hi,

You aren't fully reading the explanations. It is the addresses that are
reserved for the system, and this is regardless of how much ram is
installed. In XP you didn't see it because the amount of ram installed was
nowhere near the 4GB of addressing space of this 32-bit OS. The /PAE switch
allows for more addressing space, so then you can see it.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

<vyaw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186356238.3...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

[vyaw...@gmail.com]

On Aug 6, 10:02 am, "Rick Rogers" <r...@mvps.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You aren't fully reading the explanations. It is the addresses that are
> reserved for the system, and this is regardless of how much ram is
> installed. In XP you didn't see it because the amount of ram installed was
> nowhere near the 4GB of addressing space of this 32-bit OS. The /PAE switch
> allows for more addressing space, so then you can see it.
>

Rick just to clarify, "so then you can see it". Even if i can see it
with a /PAE switch = 4gig, the machine will only ever use say 3 gig
because the other part is reservered for the system addresses. So the
max ram that can be used comes down to how many addresses it needs to
allocate for the system eg 750mb leaving the remaining addresses out
of 4096mb to be allocated to ram.

Long answer and short answer, is machines are now made for 64 bit ram
sizes, and 64 bit cpu's and dual cores, turn your Windows cd into
coasters and go and buy 64 bit OS's now!!

[Tom Lake]

<vyaw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186355538.7...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> If i have 4 gig, only 3 shows, 750mb is reservered for the system.
> Doesn't that seem a little stupid? If i have 3 gig of ram, 3 gig
> shows in vista, here it has not needed to reserve 750mb.

Yest it has reserved 750MB, itt's just that the 750MB is above the 3GB
so you don't see it. When you have 4GB RAM, the 750MB has to be
taken out of the total.

So why does
> the first scenario need 750 for the system, and the second does not?

Here's the diagram again:

System total:
|-------------------------4GB-------------------------------|

With 4GB:
|---------------3GB RAM-----------------|----System------|

With 3GB:
|---------------3GB RAM-----------------|----System------|

With 2GB:
|--------2GB RAM------------|--Unused--|----System------|

With 3GB or less, you won't see any difference between installed
RAM and amount available to Windows.

Tom Lake

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 20:02:16 -0400, "Rick Rogers" wrote:

>You aren't fully reading the explanations. It is the addresses that are
>reserved for the system, and this is regardless of how much ram is
>installed. In XP you didn't see it because the amount of ram installed was
>nowhere near the 4GB of addressing space of this 32-bit OS. The /PAE switch
>allows for more addressing space, so then you can see it.

This is really funny, like deja vu all over again.

Remember when IBM put all the ROMs at 640k because "no-one would ever
need that much RAM"?

Still, the system mappings have to do somewhere, I guess. Do they
fill the top part of the map, or is it a matter of 5M worth of stull
scattered from 3.12G upwards, breaking contiguous addressability?

Does addressability still need to be contiguous, in the post-286 age?

>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

[Rick Rogers]

Hi Chris,

> Remember when IBM put all the ROMs at 640k because "no-one would ever
> need that much RAM"?

Indeed, still talk about that with the old pc buffs.

> Still, the system mappings have to do somewhere, I guess. Do they
> fill the top part of the map, or is it a matter of 5M worth of stull
> scattered from 3.12G upwards, breaking contiguous addressability?

I honestly don't know on this one. I can't see where that much system
address space is required, but then again you never know. I think it's more
along the lines of an arbitrary point chosen as the cut off line, and
anything above it is marked as reserved, used or not.

> Does addressability still need to be contiguous, in the post-286 age?

I don't believe so, but again I don't know for sure.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquir...@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
message news:8ctub3hnif62dminv...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 20:02:16 -0400, "Rick Rogers" wrote:
>
>>You aren't fully reading the explanations. It is the addresses that are
>>reserved for the system, and this is regardless of how much ram is
>>installed. In XP you didn't see it because the amount of ram installed was
>>nowhere near the 4GB of addressing space of this 32-bit OS. The /PAE
>>switch
>>allows for more addressing space, so then you can see it.
>
> This is really funny, like deja vu all over again.
>
>
>
>

[Mark]

Addresses mapped
4GB of RAM installed
|---------------------|--------------|------|---|
1-2 GB for OS
2 GB for program "The hole"
| ~750MB |
Device
|------|--||
Video BIOS etc.

On your computer, you have a video card that has it's own memory. To make it
work faster, it is mapped as part of your RAM. You cannot have two areas of
memory with the same addresses, so the 750 MB of RAM above 3.12 GB is
"blocked", "re-routed" or "reserved" so that (in this case) the video card
can use those addresses for direct access to the processor. Other devices
_may_ do the same thing: Sound, BIOS, etc. So, the whole block of RAM is
"reserved." If you have a super-video card, you may even see less than 3GB.

When you only have 3GB installed, those addresses are not duplicated, so
they do not need to be "blocked" from program use and you see the whole 3GB.
When you have 4GB installed, those "reserved" addresses are blocked from
your use and available memory appears impaired.

The devices need unique addresses. 32-bit is limited to 4GB and the Vista
(32-bit) actually limits you to 3.12 GB because the "hole" must exist. So,
even with gimmicks, you can't get more because the devices need those
addresses. Instead, you can claim some of the OS operating space at a cost of
OS efficiency.
Gimmicks:
/PAE gives four more bits to the address bus (36-bits), but cannot be used
if you have less than 4GB of RAM installed:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366796.aspx
bcdedit /set increaseuserva (used to be /3GB) can be use to re-divide the
program/kernel memory usage:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb613473.aspx
Use both with caution since they require certain setups to exist and impose
new limitations.

A 64-bit OS will allow you to use more memory, but the hole still exists (it
will vary in size) because those devices are _typically_ hard-coded to those
addresses.

[JW]

With a 64Bit OS the OS addresses can start at 750 and can go to 4750 so you
don't loose any actual space because of the reserve for hardware requiring
system addresses.

"Mark" <Ma...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FF82B07-0668-4FE1...@microsoft.com...

[JW]

If you have not previously read the following KB article it may shed some
light on your problem.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us

"GregM" <Gr...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:419C6DE1-1F98-4FFD...@microsoft.com...
> I'm showing 3.50 GB of RAM on a 4GB system.

[GaryReger]

I have read thread and referenced KB articles. But what is unclear is whether
I am getting any performance benefit from 4gig. That is, is the 750 mb
reserved for addresses enhancing my performance in any way? Or did I just pay
for an extra gig that does me no good?

[Spirit]

You are getting marginal benefit from the extra gig,,, but leave
it in.

"GaryReger" <Gary...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:51A411BF-3EA5-46DA...@microsoft.com...

[DevilsPGD]

In message <51A411BF-3EA5-46DA...@microsoft.com>
GaryReger <Gary...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I have read thread and referenced KB articles. But what is unclear is whether
>I am getting any performance benefit from 4gig. That is, is the 750 mb
>reserved for addresses enhancing my performance in any way? Or did I just pay
>for an extra gig that does me no good?

There is no benefit in that last 750MB -- However, you are getting
benefit from the remainder of that gig.

More importantly though, that probably means you have 4x1GB sticks,
which probably means dual channel mode is available. This gives some
extra performance, so even though you aren't able to address or use the
last 750MB, you're better off with that stick in then without it.

--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.

[JW]

If your Vista 64 GB system is showing that all 4GB are supported then you
are getting a lot of benefit especially if you run applications that use a
lot of memory such as video file conversions. In any case if all 4GB are
supported then all of it that is not currently in use will be used for disk
caching which can greatly increase the response time of reading files off of
disk such as video or photo files which have not been recently used or time
shifted video if you are using MC with TV programming.

"GaryReger" <Gary...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:51A411BF-3EA5-46DA...@microsoft.com...

[Rob]

In the article I read about turning on PAE in a 32 bit OS it said this:

"On a computer that supports hardware-enabled Data Execution Prevention
(DEP) and is running a 32-bit version of the Windows operating system that
supports DEP, PAE is automatically enabled when DEP is enabled and, on all
32-bit versions of the Windows operating system, except Windows Server 2003
with SP1, PAE is disabled when you disable DEP."

My Vista system automaticly turned on DEP when I installed it and it is
running now for "essential windows and programs and services only" does this
still mean that PAE is enabled and working now on my system?

[Jane C]

Hi Rob,

Yes, if DEP is active, then PAE is on. DEP cannot run without PAE being
enabled.

--
Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :-)
Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
MVP - Windows Shell/User

"Rob" <R...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:71F5CBC8-FA4C-435F...@microsoft.com...

[garfield]

Issue: ON A COMPUTER THAT HAS 4GB OF RAM, THE SYSTEM PROPERTIES DIALOG BOX IN
WINDOWS VISTA MAY ERPORT LESS MEMORY THT YU EXPECT (LESS THAT 3GB)

Discussion: This problem occurs the address space is limited to 4 GB in a
32-bit hardware environment. Memory may be relocated to make room for
addresses that the basic input/output system (BIOS) reserves for hardware.
However, because of this limitation, windows Vista cannot access memory that
is relocated above the 4 GB boundary.

Solution:
1. Open an elevated command prompt

2. Type BCDEdit/set pae ForceEnable

3. press enter

The PAE parameter enables Physical adress extension (PAE). On 32-bit
versions of Windows, PAE is disabled by default. PAE is an addressing
strategy that uses a page-translation herarchy to enable systems with 32-bit
addressing to address more that 4 GB of physical memory. PAE also supports
several advanced system and processor features, such as Data Execution
Prevention (DEP;"No execute"), Non-Uniform Memory Architecture (NUMA), and
hot-add memory, so it is also used on computers with less than 4 GB of
memory. PAE must be supported by the processor.

On a computer that supports hardware-enabled Data Execution Prevention

(DEP), PAE is automatically enabled when DEP is enabled and automatically
disables when you disable DEP.

To enable PAE when DEP is disabled,you must enable PAE explicitly;

1. Open an elevated Command prompt.

2. Type BCDEdit/set nx AlwaysOff & BCDEdit/set pae ForceEnable

3. press enter

**for more information, check out microsoft KB Article 929605 - The system
memory that is reported in the System Information dialog box in Windows vista
is less than you expect if 4 GB of RAM is installed.**

[Unknown]

Hi. The person who mentioned the 64bit edition I run vista ultimate and after
some research, I found that at best, the 32bit with 4g ram will show 3.5g?
This puzzled me, so after much digging I found that the 64 home basic will
see 4g, home premium is 16g and 64bit ultra, at 32g. I heard the same thing
from other sources. BUT WHY????

[JW]

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us

"Rol...@hotmail.com" <Rol...@hotmail.com@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:99A5F190-734E-4440...@microsoft.com...

[C Jones]

I'm sorry you are experiencing these probs...but I positively know that this
is the solution to your problem... I've done investigation work into this
problem.

When I built this computer from scratch, the motherboard I installed has 4
bays fitted to it which means that each bay can hold up to a maximum of 4 GB
of DDR2 ram, and at the moment, i'm only using just 1 GB but if I installed
4GB ram, and installed Windows Vista H.Premium 32 BIT, Vista would only
report that it can only see 3GB because that's the top memory spec that
microsoft built vista for, (this applies to all versions), if I wanted vista
to report the full amount of memory, even if 6 GB was installed, or 10 GB
installed, it would make much better thinking to put the 64 bit on first and
cover everything, than rather have the 32 bit to cover my first 3 GB, and
upgrade later.

Secondly, if you click on this web site address (or you can use the "Cut &
Paste" option), this site lists how much memory vista can handle per edition
following an upgrade from XP.

Version Limit in 32-bit Windows Limit in
64-bit Windows

Windows Vista Ultimate 4 GB 128 GB
Windows Vista Enterprise 4 GB 128 GB
Windows Vista Business 4 GB 128 GB
Windows Vista Home Premium 4 GB 16 GB
Windows Vista Home Basic 4 GB 8 GB
Windows Vista Starter 1 GB Not
applicable

These Websites, - Explains Everything about vista 64 bit versions and what
they will and will not accept.

1: http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
2:
http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Windows_Vista_Hardware_Compatibility_List
3:
http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Windows_Vista_RTM_Software_Compatibility_List